James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

This morning's statements, apart from highlighting the situation, appear to be somewhat meaningless and we have had a vote on the Order of Business already. What should be before the House is a motion calling on the IPU and the HSE to stand back from any precipitative action that would endanger continuity of supply of medicines to the most vulnerable in our society, that is, the elderly, the chronically ill and those with disabilities.

I have already commended, on a number of occasions, the HSE on its quest for cheaper medicines for our people. We all want value for the taxpayer. We all want to see that but the manner as to how we achieve it is at issue here. The HSE has sought through unilateral action to bully pharmacists into accepting new pay and conditions that are interfering with their current contract. On the floor of this House before Christmas, we asked that the IPU and the HSE stand back and that neither would take precipitative action but would allow for an independent individual, Mr. Bill Shipsey, to facilitate a resolution. My information is that following presentations by each side the HSE felt there was no further negotiation possible. This, even members of the Government found incredible. The nature of negotiations is that they are ongoing. Many backbenchers in Fianna Fáil have expressed dismay at the manner in which the HSE is conducting its business. Yet the HSE was able to tell us at the committee that it was acting directly under the Minister's instruction. So, it is the Minister who shall have to take responsibility for the consequences of this unilateral change in the contract for pharmacists. Let us not confuse the situation. A new contract was offered over the heads of the IPU during negotiations in January with a rather intimidatory accompanying letter which suggested they would do well to sign the new contract or they could find themselves much worse off after the 1 March deadline. That showed extremely bad faith.

This is no way to conduct negotiations. Furthermore the very "coincidental" involvement of the Competition Authority since this dispute began has bothered and worried many people in what is supposed to be a democracy. The reality is that the Minister rightly sought to create savings and she has to be congratulated on managing to save €55 million from the manufacturers but she now seeks to take €100 million off the retailers whose gross income is €300 million, a drop of 33%.

The Minister mentioned her own Indecon report. In that report, which I have read, it is stated that no sudden changes should take place. Nobody who would consider going from 17% to 8%, a 50% drop, as not sudden — the Minister may not accept that but she will find herself in a minority. The report also stated that it was unwise to compare the Irish market with other markets in Europe, yet the HSE continued to insist on comparing it to Norway, where I understand the market is controlled by two chains of retail pharmacists.

The Minister mentioned earlier moneys spent by one group, €300 million, on pharmacies and another group who owns 400 pharmacies and another group who owns 75 pharmacies. There are 1,600 pharmacies in this country and there is a huge mix. It has been pointed out that there are single operators, group operators, small chains, large chains and multiples. Surely that is a great mix to have in a market. The Indecon report also asked for an independent arbitrator to be put in place before any final conclusions were drawn, instead of which the Minister has made the decision to unilaterally implement the changes and then have a report. What faith can people have in such a process? The Minister is putting the cart before the horse and prejudging the outcome. Even if she were not prejudging the outcome, when there is an outcome, after one, two or three months, how many pharmacists will have gone out of business? What action will have been taken? I certainly do not think it is in the best interests of the consumer or the market.

See this speech in context